On Tue, 2015-12-08 at 10:37 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> From: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas at sang-engineering.com>
>
> Switch to the new generic functions. Plain convert, no functionality
> added yet.
One style nitpick.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas at sang-engineering.com>
> ---
> ?drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-rcar.c | 16 +++++++++-------
> ?1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-rcar.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-
> rcar.c
> index d4322a9096786f..c663f4389bf898 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-rcar.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-rcar.c
> @@ -162,12 +162,15 @@ static int rcar_i2c_bus_barrier(struct
> rcar_i2c_priv *priv)
> ? return -EBUSY;
> ?}
> ?
> -static int rcar_i2c_clock_calculate(struct rcar_i2c_priv *priv, u32
> bus_speed)
> +static int rcar_i2c_clock_calculate(struct rcar_i2c_priv *priv,
> struct i2c_timings *t)
> ?{
> ? u32 scgd, cdf, round, ick, scl, cdf_width;
> ? unsigned long rate;
> ? struct device *dev = rcar_i2c_priv_to_dev(priv);
> ?
> + /* Fall back to previously used values if not supplied */
> + t->bus_freq_hz = t->bus_freq_hz ?: 100000;
On one hand it seems enough space to put one more t->bus_freq_hz, on
the other why not
if (!t->bus_freq_hz)
? = 100000;
I think a bit better to maintain latter.
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko at linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
